It's one thing to diss Darwin, but did you have to disrespect Godwin?
|Rodents of Unusual Size |
I'm not going to 5 star this...I want to one star it so I just won't rate it.
Ann Coulter is a theologian now. Really? I guess it really can't be that hard, anymore.
One thing to show new batshit crazy, so people know it's there, but I don't think it's good to just give free exposure to old and tired batshit crazy.
Ann Coulter is a vapid shitbag whose mouth only serves as an open vacuum from which her frothy faux-cleverness spews forth, lisping its way to the toilet. That, and I find it ironically hilarious that the author of "From Darwin to Hitler" looks and talks like an older version of the Geico Cavemen.
Don't think for a minute that Coulter believes this shit, it's just a new way to troll liberals.
I don't know how to rate this. When I see something like this and someone brings up the whole "If we got here by natural processes we should be able to kill/rob anyone we want", I realize that they oblivious to a few key concepts:
1. We can base morality on reason.
2. Their morality requires free will to be coherent. Free will only makes sense without causality. Thus we can conclude that they are either permanently confused or insane.
3. Without the fear of being BURNED FOREVER, they would act as they truly are: sociopaths.
...I realize that they *are* oblivious...
Without Darwin, human beings were perfectly moral -- Genghis Kahn, Oliver Cromwell, Savonrola.
I just don't understand these people. They are so hypocritical about their arguments, but at the same time their arguments are wrong.
|Caminante Nocturno |
Did America EVER have the right to call itself the greatest country on Earth? Probably not.
|Meatsack Jones |
I can't rate this either. To be quite honest, I am having trouble linking an evolutionary theory with a lack of "morality", that has been violated itself by organized religion repeatedly as well.
My solution, we replace the pope and our top scientist's necks with springs and have a best two out of three Rock'Em Sock'Em robots match. Winner mandates reality.
Okay, it won't solve much, but I yearn to see the silly pope hat doing a bobbly spring act after an uppercut for my own amusement.
Social Darwinism ≠ Darwin's theory of evolution
Darwin's theory of evolution is a reasonable, even obvious and unavoidable theory based on empirical evidence. Stuff changes, variants of stuff that do well make more of themselves.
Social Darwinism is a shallow, pseudo-scientific justification of racism, classism, and xenophobia. Ironically, the only area it gets much traction nowadays is in the right's justification of why it's ok to exploit the working classes.
Though they do at least mention that it wasn't Darwin himself who coined the "survival of the fittest" slogan, they immediately then assume it as a blanket summary of Darwin's theory. A more accurate quote, from Darwin himself is "It is not the strongest of the species that survive, but the one most responsive to change." (With thanks to Sid Meier)
And, it seems almost too easy to point out that christianity has been the source of more than its share of death, suffering and intolerance over the years (the inquisition, genocide of native american civilizations, countless bloody wars in europe, the crusades, etc.)
Also, it should be a point in favor of natural selection that the Colombine shooters neither survived or bred.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|